Avodah Mailing List

Volume 24: Number 79

Tue, 27 Nov 2007

• 1. Re: Fables and Lies -- The poem Ayleh Ezke'rah (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 2. Re: hasgacha pratit (Richard Wolpoe)
• 3. Re: ***DHSPAM*** Re: proofs of G-d (Richard Wolpoe)
• 4. Apikores? (Sholom Simon)
• 5. Re: Fables and Lies -- The poem Ayleh Ezke'rah (Richard Wolpoe)
• 6. Re: hasgacha pratit (Richard Wolpoe)
• 7. Re: Kashrus Question (Zev Sero)
• 8. Re: Fables and Lies -- The poem Ayleh Ezke'rah (T613K@aol.com)
• 9. Re: "Watch Whom You Marry" (Richard Wolpoe)
• 10. Re: Hashgacha Pratis (Shoshana L. Boublil)
• 11. Re: proofs of G-d (Ben Waxman)
• 12. Fwd: piyyutim (Eli Turkel)
• 13. Re: Apikores? (Marty Bluke)

R' Shalom Kohn:
> The more serious problem in the poem is that it portrays the kohain
> gadol as lifting the severed head of the nasi and bemoaning his fate.
> This is a very dramatic scene.  But --- since a skull causes tuma'at
> meit, how could the kohain gadol lift the severed head of the nasi?
> 
> There are three possible answers, with only the third (a chiddush)
> potentially satisfactory:
> 
> 1.  The event occurred in a tent, so the kohain gadol was tamei anyway.
> However, there is no heter for the increase in tumah from ohel to
> magah, at least according to most views.
<SNIP>

Maybe when RSBG's was beheaded, his head or his body fell touching R'
Yishmael, so R' Yishmael wasn't increasing to Negiah. 

KT,
MYG

On Nov 23, 2007 7:46 AM, Eli Turkel <eliturkel@gmail.com> wrote:

> <<Why is it so difficult for so many to believe in the concept of
> Hashgachah
> Pratis (without getting into if it is correct according to the Mesorah or
> not)? Is it because of conflicts with Bechirah?>>
>
> Mainly because it goes against common sense and modern science.
> We know from physics that objects fall due to gravity. According to
> the Baal Shem Tov
> no leaf falls or any action occurs without G-d decreeing it.
> Seems somewhat silly for G-d to decree what we know will happen anyway.
>
>
> kol tuv
>
> --
> Eli Turkel
>

maybe what the BESHT meant is the G-d decreed gravity and therefore that no
leaf falls unless it is obedient of G-d's law



Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
Please Visit:
http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071126/ba42351e/attachment.htm 

On Nov 22, 2007 8:20 PM, Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 22, 2007 at 08:34:06PM +0200, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
> : R' Zev Sero wrote:
> : > I have heard from a reliable source, in the name of Dayan Abramsky,
> : > that "today, anyone who does not believe in the Baal Shem Tov's shita
> : > in hashgacha pratis [i.e. the one that the Chinuch rejected] is an
> : > apikores".
> : >
> : >
>
>
Well,ein ledavar sof!
There are those that say TODAY any Ashkenaz who says Machnisei Rachamim is a
kofer as per Rambam. Then there are those that say with the advent of the
Arizal anyone who follows Rambam is an apikoros. But a former Rosh Yeshiva
at YU states that if you DON"T follow the Rambam's 13 ikkarim [apparently as
articualted by the Rambam himself] you are an apikoros. But that of course
that would include anyone who says machniesi Rachamim!  Thus, Rav Breuer and
Rav Schwab and most yekkes [and Litvaks?] who faithfully follow Minhag
Ashkenaz are in violation of v'hu levado ra'uy ...


-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
Please Visit:
http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071126/0205220c/attachment.html 

At 01:29 PM 11/26/2007, avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org wrote:
> > the Baal Shem Tov
> > no leaf falls or any action occurs without G-d decreeing it.
> > Seems somewhat silly for G-d to decree what we know will happen anyway.

I think his view was more along the lines of: "even the falling of a 
single leaf is an essential part of The Plan."

Further, we _don't_ know exactly when it will happen, nor do we know 
exactly where it will fall, or the consequences of that fall.  For 
those who believe, a la Chaos Theory, that the butterfly's flapping 
wing here can lead to a hurricane there -- certainly we have no idea 
of the impact of a solitary falling leaf.

(I'm not necessarily endorsing the Besht's view, just explaining it 
(as I understand it))

-- Sholom  

On Nov 26, 2007 9:23 PM, Moshe Y. Gluck <mgluck@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> Maybe when RSBG's was beheaded, his head or his body fell touching R'
> Yishmael, so R' Yishmael wasn't increasing to Negiah.
>
> KT,
> MYG
>

Maybe R. Yishmael was in a state of shock and unable not to respond
rationally and responded emotionally instead.

-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
Please Visit:
http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071126/9b5f5da1/attachment.htm 

>
On Nov 23, 2007 7:46 AM, Eli Turkel <eliturkel@gmail.com> wrote:

> <<Why is it so difficult for so many to believe in the concept of
> Hashgachah
> Pratis (without getting into if it is correct according to the Mesorah or
> not)? Is it because of conflicts with Bechirah?>>
>
> Mainly because it goes against common sense and modern science.
> We know from physics that objects fall due to gravity. According to
> the Baal Shem Tov no leaf falls or any action occurs without G-d decreeing
> it.
> Seems somewhat silly for G-d to decree what we know will happen anyway.
> kol tuv
>
> --
> Eli Turkel
>

> maybe what the BESHT meant is the G-d decreed gravity and therefore that
no leaf falls unless it is obedient of G-d's law


-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
Please Visit:
http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071126/75c62efb/attachment.html 

Richard Wolpoe wrote:

> May one drink the coffee brewed in a hotel lobby on Shabbat - since it 
> was brewed ion Shabbat pimarily for Genitles?

Why not?  There's no problem of "shema yarbeh bishvilo", since the
goy makes an entire pot at a time, and doesn't even know which guests
drink how much.

I would go further and say that even at home, if the goy makes an
entire pot of coffee, on the sort of coffeemaker that makes it
inconvenient to brew less than a whole pot at a time, one could drink
his leftovers, since it's "ner le'echad ner lishnayim"; i.e. he would
have made the same amount even if he knew he would end up spilling out
the leftovers, and he could not have made more even if he knew you
wanted some.  The same logic might also apply if he pops an entire
package of popcorn, though there perhaps we should worry that next
time he might make two packages.
 

> A gentile owned enterprsiee NEVER needs to sell its hametz!  The only 
> issue it MIGHT have is if it BUYS after Passover  hametz that had been 
> owned by Jews during the course of Passover!

I think not even then.  Chametz she'avar alav hapesach is a kenas.
It's not an inherent issur on the food itself.  So the intermediate
goy should "wash" it.

-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                       	                          - Clarence Thomas

 
 
From: "Kohn, Shalom" _skohn@Sidley.com_ (mailto:skohn@Sidley.com) 


>>Various commentators addressed the anachronisms in he poem Ayleh  Ezke'raha 
and whether poetic license impacts on "truth."

The more serious  problem in the poem is that it portrays the kohain gadol as 
lifting the severed  head of the nasi and bemoaning his fate.  This is a very 
dramatic  scene.  But --- since a skull causes tuma'at meit, how could the 
kohain  gadol lift the severed head of the nasi?  

There are three possible  answers....:

1.  The event occurred in a tent, ....
 

2.  It was a case of meit mitzah.....  

3.  ....the reason for meit mitzvah is kavod ha-meit, and in the  context, 
lifting the head was for that purpose.... 
 
The more troubling possibility is that the paytan's literary skills  exceeded 
his halachic awareness.....  <<
 
>>>>>
I can think of a few more possibilities (although I have little halachic  
knowledge and these suggestions may not hold water at all):
 
1. Maybe it says somewhere that a tzaddik's body does not convey  tumah?  
Maybe we don't nowadays posken like this in practice but maybe they  did back 
then, or maybe it's at least good enough for poetic purposes?
 
2.  A completely burnt body with all the flesh burnt off, so that  nothing 
remains but the bones -- do the bones convey tumah?
 
Also another possibility is that "lifting" the skull just means something  
like pointing to it or mentioning it, making it the main point of his  lament -- 
the way a navi is said to "lift a mashal" (pardon me for being  too tired to 
look up where it uses that phrase).  i.e., it's being used  poetically




--Toby  Katz
=============



**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest 
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071127/6457b7e9/attachment.htm 

On Nov 21, 2007 5:20 PM, Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:

>
> Yaaqov avinu  to justify the claim "vetaryag
> mitzvos shamarti". - MI


So how did Ya'akov avinu keep 613 mitzvos when it is impossible for any
individual to keep all 613 anyway?

As Zev Sero pointed out "vo'eso eschem" that if a PASSUK cannto be taken
literally it must betaken matephorically - isn't it as Kal Vachomer that an
Aggedic passage that cannot be taken literally should be taken
metaphorically?   Why would we take an Aggadah LITERALLY over a Passuk?

-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
Please Visit:
http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071127/d9cd3ff3/attachment.html 

> Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 13:24:53 -0600 (CST)
> From: Steven J Scher <sjscher@eiu.edu>
> Subject: [Avodah] Hashgacha Pratis
>
>> Moshe Y. Gluck:
>>> Why is it so difficult for so many to believe in the concept of 
>>> Hashgachah
>>> Pratis (without getting into if it is correct according to the Mesorah 
>>> or
>>> not)? Is it because of conflicts with Bechirah?

> Forgive my naivete in this discussion... I"m just trying to understand.
>
> But, does hashgacha pratis only apply to making sure that good things
> happen to the tzaddikim and bad things happen to the reshaim?

Hashgacha Pratit is a term that encompasses a very complicated issue. 
Simplistically, Hashem has a 24/7 camera on each of us recording everything 
we are doing individually, on one hand.  On the other He is influencing our 
personal story in this lifetime.

The first question is what is the relationship between these 2 aspects of 
Hashgacha Pratit?

One opinion is that the level of interaction depends on the level of a 
person.

The second question is how does Bechira Chofshit influence Hashgacha Pratit?

Another aspect of this discussion is the interpretation of the saying 
"BaDerech She'Adam Holech - Molichim Oto".  According to one interpretation 
of this idea, Bechira does not happen on a continuum, rather it happens at 
intervals, at various intersections in a person's life.  In between Hashem 
(through Hashgacha Pratit) guides him down the road he chose, until another 
intersection appears.  We've seen this idea in the practical sayings "Sechar 
Mitzva - Mitzva" etc.

Another aspect appears in Nevi'im, "Darkei Hashem Yesharot, Tzadikim Yeilchu 
Bam URe'shaim Yikashlu Bam", without going into the various interpretations, 
this pasuk deals again with question of Hashgacha Peratit and the 
relationship with Bechira Chofshit.

So, IMHO, as long as people realize that the issue of Hashgacha Peratit may 
have simplistic aspects, but it also has very complex ones (especially if 
you add the S'char Va'Onesh issues, this world vs. the world to come,  and 
the public policy issues).

I gather that's why Hashem is in charge of calculating the result of all 
these "interferences" b/c I doubt a human could, even using a supercomputer. 
<g>

My personal view is to live our lives with the knowledge of Hashgacha 
Peratit, to use our Bechira Chofshit to do our best according to Hashem's 
guidelines, and leave the accounting to Him.

Shoshana L. Boublil

>From: "Richard Wolpoe" <rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com>
>
>Just because the Gmara shteit geshribben that Rav so-and-so says due to X we
>lost the Mikdash has anything to do with history! It probably was an
>xhortation to better ethics  IMHO it is only our "foolishness" that sees
>what Hazal were saying as imperative to BLAME someone!

If this is what people learn, then they are definitely learning the 
wrong lesson. They blamed themselves, not "someone"; i.e. they blamed 
their own group. Think of it - Hazal could have blamed the Jewish 
Christians, the seculars, the tzzaduqqim, Gnostics, all sort of break 
off groups. But they blamed frum Jews who couldn't control their mouths.

Ben

<<Given Kallir wrote piyyutim for the Yotzeir
Given Remah [as in Yad Remah not R. M isserles!] - cited by Tur and
Ratified by mehcabeir [O. Ch. 68]] - objects strongly to saying
piyytuim at taht time due to hefsek.
Questions:

   1. How is it that Kallir could not have known the Halachah?
   2. How didt Ashkneazim continue to add piyyutim in the same
location for generations?
   3. Could they all have been wrong?
   4. And if they were indeed CORRECT - how could the Remah object?
   5. Or was this simply an aongoing Machlokes?
   6. So if Rema Isserles ruled it is OK for Ahsknezim to say them,
how come this p'sak was revised by OTHER Ashkenazim? >>

Obviously it was an ongoing machloket (as is the question of who
Kallir was). Many consider Kallir among the important poskim.

Question: There are also piyyutim in the middle of birchat kriyat
shema. Even in the chassidic shuls that I
davened in they skipped these. Does anyone know of any community that
still says these?
Related there is a one line piyut right after Borchu that is said. Why
is that different?

Even in shemonei esrei there is a consensus which piyyutim are
skipped. In fact Artscroll puts them in an appendix.
Anyone have any idea how this came about?


--
Eli Turkel



-- 
Eli Turkel

R' Zev Sero wrote:
<Because now we know better.  Many rishonim lived before the discovery
> of the Zohar, and all lived before the AriZal and the Baal Shem Tov,
> so they were missing information.  The AriZal was taught by Eliyahu
> Hanavi, and the Baal Shem Tov by Achiyah Hashiloni, and therefore knew
> things that had been completely forgotten in previous generations.

There is a famous statement of the Chazon Ish that we don't rely on
manuscripts of Rishonim to overturn psikei halacha. In other words,
even if we know for sure that the psak is based on an erroneous girsa
it doesn't matter, that version was accepted by the mesora. The
statement above about how we now know better completely contradicts
this Chazon Ish.


------------------------------


Avodah mailing list
Avodah@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 24, Issue 79
**************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."